News   Mar 28, 2024
 705     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 481     1 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 796     0 

Sprawl is Good for You?

Emissions is but one small factor in suburbs, I feel the main argument has become more about quality of life than that emissions.

Quality of life is 100% subjective though... At the very least, individuals are capable of determining what kind of lifestyle they want for themselves.

Emissions has been, by far, the most successful criticism of sprawl/car usage since it's such an obvious market failure and creates such readily quantifiable and observable negative externalities (look at this thread, didn't take long for pictures of smog to show up). So I wouldn't suggest it's such a small part of the overall argument against cars.

Even if you personally prefer to live in a dense, urban environment, it's a bit naive to think a vehicle emissions free version of Broadacre City wouldn't be appealing to many. Many people do like low density living. Even in Europe and Asia, many people prefer lower density living. High gas prices and lack of city center parking have put an obvious economic barrier to excessive sprawl though.
 
key word being the right time, the time that isn't suitable for the vast majority of people on a daily basis.

and if you honestly believe that Toronto is regularly like that picture even remotely you are sorely incorrect.

That's what expansion of highways is for, something that toronto decided to not do since 1970. Nor did they realistically plan any proper public transit networks since that time. To the point to where most highways within the gta are packed the entire day and subways are over flowing.

And yes I know toronto is not often polluted to the degree I showed but the air quality is rarely fair in the city. What you can't see can still be quite harmful.


Emissions is but one small factor in suburbs, I feel the main argument has become more about quality of life than that emissions.

For your information most suburbs outside toronto have significantly less packed roads then toronto itself due to the fact the roads can still handle the amount of cars that use them. So what are the "quality of life issues" in the suburbs?

2.Do you seriously believe that driving hours every day (an activity that itself generates more pollution = unhelthy) to go to places where you'll probably continue to be inactive is healthier than having to walk, even if that means going through smog a few days of the year?

Who said driving hours a day? I live 10km from the core/my destination for work, it takes me 10-12 minutes to arrive using the gardener. If you choose to live somewhere so far off that you commute is hours a day it is your bad planning that is the problem.

Quality of life is 100% subjective though... At the very least, individuals are capable of determining what kind of lifestyle they want for themselves.

Emissions has been, by far, the most successful criticism of sprawl/car usage since it's such an obvious market failure and creates such readily quantifiable and observable negative externalities (look at this thread, didn't take long for pictures of smog to show up). So I wouldn't suggest it's such a small part of the overall argument against cars.

Urban "sprawl" is caused by the fact that people immigrate into cities, new houses are required. Not everyone wants to live in a small concrete condo in the city so they choose the suburbs. Considering like I said the traffic in the suburbs is considerably less, you can always escape the city, with a bunch of other perks you can see why many choose to live there, considering employment is available near by.

Forcing everyone to immediately densify won't lead to happy responses from many who have gotten used to a lower density lifestyle, so why force it upon them.
 
This thread will be of interest to me. I am going to do a research project on suburbs vs sprawl in trying to find what makes the former so appealing to so many.

Diminutive's comment is something to think about though. In some ways I feel a bit hypocritical condemning auto dependence, when I am an addict of technology and the internet. Sure I justify it that one opens your mind, while the latter makes you dependent on a vehicle to transverse your physical environment, but we are already dependent on so much technology it is sickening. Look at the power outage we went through in the last couple of weeks, it really exposed us to how dependent we are on electricity.

While those who envisioned a 100% automotive world dreamed of the freedom to go anywhere, they overlooked the lack of exercise causing the destruction to our bodies. They also overlooked the ability to meet others beyond your nuclear household, causing destruction to our social reproduction. It seems the human race really does best excel at its own self destruction, even when we are trying to find ways to better our quality of life and expand our horizons.
 
http://youtu.be/-AzOGDzIEnw
That man is in this video as well. A lot of it was filmed in Mississauga actually. Maybe some of you will recognize Erin Mills Mall. The message i took out of this is that the suburban, consumer lifestyle is not sustainable and will soon be forced to an end, whether we like it or not.
 
This thread will be of interest to me. I am going to do a research project on suburbs vs sprawl in trying to find what makes the former so appealing to so many.

You may want to check out the Toronto Urban Sprawl thread under Buildings, Architecture & Urban Design
 
Do we really want to pave that productive & beautiful farmland over with McDonald's and Walmart parking lots? Besides the waste & food production aspect, biking & driving through the rolling hills of Ontario farmland is a great scenic experience.

If you look at the demographic and population changes in rural Ontario (i.e. not in the CTA CMA), population growth is negative in truly rural areas (while towns, villages and cities are experiencing growth). This has lead to an increase in the arable land and is expected to increase over time. There use to be homes, barns and outbuildings that took up about 1 acre for every 120 acres. With the increasing price of arable land (about $20,000 an acre in some areas) these building are being torn down and are available for planting. I expect that over time quite a few rural roads (10-20%) can be abandoned and be converted to farmland.

Many municipalities (other than Toronto) have embraced smart growth. They do not allow farms to be subdivided (or only 1 lot subdivided off if after a certain date) and limits the size if the lot. They have created mimimum densities for new subdivisions. Developers of course are trying to negate these changes but the OMB is working! The OMB refuses the developers requests because the municipality has created a real plan based on smart growth and sticks to it.

Why don't urban planners look to these rural communities to see what works? Neighbours know each other, they are more active in the community (look to election turnout as a proxy) and they are generally happier.

Rural regions would love to have more tourism. But that involves permitting tourism to flourish in rural Ontario (not just the Niagara and Muskoka regions). This includes investing in eco-tourism initiatives (bike trails, hiking trails, camping sites) and creating regulations that are friedly to agricultural-based tourism. Over time the Ontario government has underspent on tourism infrastructure outside of cities (i.e. Toronto/Ottawa centric) and created so many regulations for farmers that they cannot have any tourism revenue beyond a fruit stand or apple picking.

The GTA CMA can learn from these municipalities to create smart communities. Both vertical or horizontal communities can either be spawl or connected (however you want to define this). We have seen great maps but have any come to fruition?

Smart communities that connect people can either be transit or car oriented. What I see both in Toronto and in rural areas is that a community that works include recreational areas that allow for team sports for the old and young (soccer, baseball, hockey, lawn bowling, etc), a compact retail downtown with small store footprints that allow for enterprenurial activities and interaction with others, retail for the masses (yes, Walmart), and commercial and industrial areas within a short commute of residential (less than 20 minutes by car or transit).

I never understand why people look at the built form (vertical vs horizontal) or location (urban vs suburban vs rural) and assume good vs bad. Look beyond to see how society interacts within that form and there are both similarities and vast differences that everyone can learn from.


...end of my rant...sorry if I rambled a bit
 
Sorry to jump back to this, but that photo of Toronto, by itself, doesn't really illustrate anything. Not all fog is smog, otherwise this photo would be just as strong an argument for some bizarre claim about forests:

big-foggy%20trees%20autumn%20twigs.jpg
 
Sorry to jump back to this, but that photo of Toronto, by itself, doesn't really illustrate anything. Not all fog is smog, otherwise this photo would be just as strong an argument for some bizarre claim about forests:

Trust me buddy that was heavy, heavy smog. I know because I was there, it was back in summer 08 as far as I remember, and a combination of weather elements caused the smog to hang around for a long time at a low level.
 
"Density" vs. "Sprawl" are also ineffective descriptors. Dense cities can themselves become very sprawling, for instance (e.g. NYC, London, Tokyo).

You seriously believe London and Tokyo sprawl as much as New York City? The urban area of New York City is much lower density than the other two.
 
If you look at the demographic and population changes in rural Ontario (i.e. not in the CTA CMA), population growth is negative in truly rural areas (while towns, villages and cities are experiencing growth). This has lead to an increase in the arable land and is expected to increase over time. There use to be homes, barns and outbuildings that took up about 1 acre for every 120 acres. With the increasing price of arable land (about $20,000 an acre in some areas) these building are being torn down and are available for planting. I expect that over time quite a few rural roads (10-20%) can be abandoned and be converted to farmland.

Many municipalities (other than Toronto) have embraced smart growth. They do not allow farms to be subdivided (or only 1 lot subdivided off if after a certain date) and limits the size if the lot. They have created mimimum densities for new subdivisions. Developers of course are trying to negate these changes but the OMB is working! The OMB refuses the developers requests because the municipality has created a real plan based on smart growth and sticks to it.

Why don't urban planners look to these rural communities to see what works? Neighbours know each other, they are more active in the community (look to election turnout as a proxy) and they are generally happier.

Rural regions would love to have more tourism. But that involves permitting tourism to flourish in rural Ontario (not just the Niagara and Muskoka regions). This includes investing in eco-tourism initiatives (bike trails, hiking trails, camping sites) and creating regulations that are friedly to agricultural-based tourism. Over time the Ontario government has underspent on tourism infrastructure outside of cities (i.e. Toronto/Ottawa centric) and created so many regulations for farmers that they cannot have any tourism revenue beyond a fruit stand or apple picking.

The GTA CMA can learn from these municipalities to create smart communities. Both vertical or horizontal communities can either be spawl or connected (however you want to define this). We have seen great maps but have any come to fruition?

Smart communities that connect people can either be transit or car oriented. What I see both in Toronto and in rural areas is that a community that works include recreational areas that allow for team sports for the old and young (soccer, baseball, hockey, lawn bowling, etc), a compact retail downtown with small store footprints that allow for enterprenurial activities and interaction with others, retail for the masses (yes, Walmart), and commercial and industrial areas within a short commute of residential (less than 20 minutes by car or transit).

I never understand why people look at the built form (vertical vs horizontal) or location (urban vs suburban vs rural) and assume good vs bad. Look beyond to see how society interacts within that form and there are both similarities and vast differences that everyone can learn from.


...end of my rant...sorry if I rambled a bit

The loss of rural population won't increase the amount of arable land by any great amount. Thirty or more years ago many farm families had five or more children. Today most just have two or three. That doesn't mean there are fewer houses, just that there are few people living in each house. Also, even if a home or farmstead was abandoned the area around the house and barns would generally not be suitable for agriculture due to the detritus left by history. That goes for former roads too.

Despite what planners and politicians like to think the biggest factor that affects development anywhere in the world is economics. In a country where almost all housing is built by private developers - development goes where it is most profitable to build. Mississauga got built only because it was the most profitable place to build homes for developers in the 1960's and '70's. Today the Toronto Waterfront is one of the most profitable areas so it is getting developed. Planners and politicians don't really direct development very much - they react to development pressure driven by economics. If you want to reduce sprawl and increase density the best way to do that is to make sprawl less profitable for developers and make density more profitable.

One of the key drivers of profitability for developers is transportation. If you build a new highway home buyers start looking at homes along that route. If you build a new subway the same thing happens. But the transportation infrastructure has to be in place. People don't usually buy new homes based on a promise of the new highway or transit line at some point in the future. Therefore one of the best ways planners and politicians can affect development is to come up with a logical transportation plan, and then make sure stuff actually gets built.

One other way planners and politicians can affect development is to get rid of property taxes that are based on property values. All that does is make the more desirable locations less financially attractive and the less desirable areas more financially attractive, which encourages sprawl. If property taxes were based on land area rather than property value (e.g 1ha of land paid the same taxes no matter where it was located in the city) - a smaller lot in a desirable place would pay less taxes than a bigger lot in a less desirable place and as a result there would be a strong financial incentive to live at higher densities.
 
Last edited:
One other way planners and politicians can affect development is to get rid of property taxes that are based on property values. All that does is make the more desirable locations less financially attractive and the less desirable areas more financially attractive, which encourages sprawl. If property taxes were based on land area rather than property value (e.g 1ha of land paid the same taxes no matter where it was located in the city) - a smaller lot in a desirable place would pay less taxes than a bigger lot in a less desirable place and as a result there would be a strong financial incentive to live at higher densities.

I also felt that property taxes should be based on the size of house and not where its located
 
From this link.

Edward Humes on How Transportation Overkill Is Killing Us

Edward Humes, 59, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist whose latest book, “Door to Door: The Magnificent, Maddening, Mysterious World of Transportation,” is a wide-ranging look at the planes, trains and cars that Americans have chosen to rely on. We spoke recently in Manhattan and later by phone. Here is an edited and condensed version of those conversations.

How did the book get started?

It grew out of my last book, which was about garbage. As I worked on it, I saw how the average American, myself included, is the most wasteful person on the planet. We are conditioned to waste and to see it as a plus. If we’re throwing things away, we think we are prosperous.

Now, if you look beyond the landfill, how we get ourselves and the stuff we consume around is one of the most wasteful things we do. We drive these vehicles that weigh 4,000 pounds and are built to carry five people and eight suitcases, and most of the time, it’s just one person and this giant machine going to work. We’ve got transportation overkill.

I thought there might be a book in that. From the beginning, my task was to avoid doing something encyclopedic, because transportation is such a huge part of our daily existence. What’s the first gift one gets at a baby shower? It’s an infant car seat. What’s the last ride you ever take? It’s in a hearse.

What’s the meaning of the book’s title, “Door to Door”?

In the transportation world, there’s something called the “first mile/last mile problem.” It’s a euphemism for forms of mass transportation, like the bus or the train, that require riders to go to stations or bus stops. Americans prefer to move door to door. They want to close one door and find themselves in front of another.

This is one of the reasons why we, as a society, are so car-dependent. Only a system built on trucks and automobiles can do this.

In the book, you write about the car as if it were a social problem.

And a health problem. And an economic problem.

Next to our home, the car is our single largest household expense. We’re paying for it round the clock. Yet, it sits idle for 22 hours a day. Plus, it’s horribly inefficient in how it uses energy. The average car wastes about 80 percent of the gasoline put into it. By comparison, an electric vehicle uses about 90 percent to actually move the car.

In terms of public health, the National Safety Council’s data on car crashes showed that in 2015, 38,300 people died and 4.4 million were seriously injured.

Why are the numbers so high?

Because everything we do is designed to produce them. We have fictitious speed limits, because the roads are designed to allow vehicles to travel much faster than stated. We have vehicles capable of achieving far higher speeds than the posted limits. Given this, people go too fast. And speeding, we know, is one of the major causes of fatal crashes.

A pedestrian struck by a vehicle going 40 miles an hour has a 10 percent chance of surviving, and one struck by a car at 20 m.p.h. has a 90 percent chance. So when we post a 40-mile maximum speed limit on a boulevard where pedestrians walk, we’re saying that in the event of a crash, a 90 percent mortality rate is acceptable.

These decisions matter. Each of us, over a lifetime, has a one-in-113 chance of dying in a car. That’s crazy, isn’t it? So we bolt extra safety devices onto our vehicles, seatbelts and airbags. Those are all great, but they don’t get to the fundamental problem: We drive way too fast to survive collisions. The bottom line is that speeding is one of the major causes of fatal crashes.

In your book, you never use the word “accident” to describe a crash. Why?

They aren’t. Most occur because of choices drivers made. If you’re chatting on your iPhone while driving, that’s a choice. If you get behind the wheel after a few drinks, that’s an “on purpose.” We probably neuter the language because who, at some point, hasn’t been speeding or run a red light?

In the 1920s, The New York Times referred to what we now erroneously call “accidents” as “motor killings.” There was more outrage then.

At the time, there was a nationwide push to have speed governors placed on cars. These were mechanical devices that kept them from going at high speeds. That effort was pushed back by the car industry. It was never deployed in any substantial way.

Are there any answers to our current problem?

I have a lot of hope for driverless cars. The great news about them is that life-or-death decisions will not be left to distracted cellphone users and drag-racing teens.

But even before that technology is perfected, a version of those speed governors would help. Certainly, the capability exists right now. Cars already have speed governors in them: cruise control, which permits drivers to set the maximum speed a car should go.

If you link navigation apps which know the speed limit for any given road and add it to cruise control, it takes the decision out of the hands of the driver. You use basically off-the-shelf technology, slightly tweaked with some new software, and you have cars that can’t speed.

Why hasn’t that happened?

I don’t have a good answer, other than: There’s no political will to keep people from driving too fast.

The irony is that if you keep everyone at the proper speed limit, traffic will move better. It’s an illusion that speeding and lane weaving will get you there faster. It often slows things down. And that’s not even counting the time lost from speed-induced accidents — I mean car crashes.

Even I sometimes call them “accidents.”
 

Back
Top